Haifa is celebrated by many as one of the few places in the region where one may find flourishing Arab-Jewish coexistence. As a Christian-Arab taxi driver put it to me on our way to the Wadi Nisnas neighborhood (“Riverbed of the Marten”), also home of the Arab Jewish Centre: “Haifa is the Alexandria of our time.”

It is here, from this vantage point, that I offer a commentary on the horrendous attack by a Jewish extremist against Arab-Israeli residents in the mixed Arab town of Shfaram, which has killed four people and wounded 12. In the immediate days following the attack, it was apparent from the standpoint of my wife and I that the attack had rekindled a discourse in the Israeli media about the dangers posed by Jewish extremism. Thankfully, aside from a few very minor incidents, it seemed as if Haifa was unscathed by the attack. Life went on and Jewish Arab interactions remained altogether peaceful. The city’s social fabric came under assault, as did all of Israel, but proved to be resilient in the face of Jewish extremism as it did many times before when it was directly hit by Islamic extremists.

This all begs the question: Who is a Jewish extremist? To begin with, all religious extremist ideologies are held by their devotees to be fundamentalist. This is to say that the religious extremist believes that he possesses an unadulterated, more accurate, and likewise fundamentalist rendition of the holy texts. What differentiates a religious extremist from his coreligionists, who also affirm the same belief? This of course is a relative question.

However, for most, an extremist is one who’s viewpoint and deeds are situated on the outermost fringes of the mainstream. Qualifying who or what should be situated on the periphery depends, in large part, on the particular time and place in history where one finds him/herself.

What may be considered extreme under modern social conditions may have been the accepted norm at some early point in time. Accordingly, most ideologies are transient and subject to the will of people. Although it may seem that those ideologies that are believed to be divinely inspired could not be subject to change, the reality is that in both Jewish and Muslim circles, the human component becomes the dominating force.

The unparalleled number of attacks intended to kill Jews in Israel and this attack aimed at Arabs have one clear thing in common: they have been classified by people of good sense as terrorist attacks perpetrated by religious extremists. The ultimate goal of such terrorism is to safeguard their radical interpretations of their holy texts that have been somehow challenged by the national and/or religious activities of the other.

And so the perceived challenge caused by Israeli-Arabs motivated Eden Natan Zada (also known as Eden Tzuberi) violence in the Shfaram. Eden, and other Jewish extremists, views all of Biblical Israel (I.e., Greater Israel) as an eternal inheritance of the Jewish people and that all non-Jews should be banished. This view is extreme because it demonstrates a great departure from a Maimonidean teaching that permits monotheists, Sons of Noah to remain in the Land of Israel as resident aliens.”

Certainly, the State of Israel and the majority of its Jewish citizens make no such distinctions in their relations with Israeli-Arabs. However, those of religious conviction that do depart from this principle have ultimately deviated from a classical Jewish posture that has existed as a dominant position since Maimonides epic work, the Mishneh Torah.

Yitzhak Rabin’s murder was neither the conclusion nor even the beginning of a long and not always subtle process which is moving Israel away from a secular state towards a theocracy. Two very different groups are attempting to peacefully coexist in Israel, each with mutually exclusive identities and each contending to define the nature of Israeli society. Sometimes one is dominant, sometimes the other – but at all times it is impossible to understand Israel with recognizing both.

One group promotes a modern society functioning according to the accepted rules of developed western societies, based on the concepts of civil liberties and civil citizenship. A second group, the focus of this article, recognize as their sole authority a selective interpretation of the Jewish halacha, or religious law. Their aim is to create a “halachic Jewish state,” a theocracy where the only law is religious in nature and all obligations and rights are defined in ancient religious terms. Their “Land of Israel” is not a strip of land with territorial boundaries, it is instead a spiritual and theological concept which must be realized.

Who are they? Where do they come from? What are their current political activities and immediate political goals? And, most importantly, what effect are they having on the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians? The answers are disturbing at best.

The history of Gush Emunim, or Bloc of the Faithful, can most simply be traced back to a cadre of young men hardened in the 1967 war and who, through the 1970s, came into leadership positions in far-right and ultra-religious communities across Israel. After becoming organized on a wider scale by the mid-1970s, they engaged in a considerable variety of direct-action political activities. Their efforts ranged from mass-protest rallies in which the morals of the nation were rebuked, to terrorist acts designed to sabotage peace efforts with Arab neighbors.

With assistance from various sympathetic government leaders, Gush Emunim have been especially involved with the effort to increase the numbers of settlers in the Occupied Territories. Those areas are considered by them to be a part of “Greater Israel” – part of the spiritual and theological state which Jews are destined to rule over. Settlers are often themselves members of Gush Emunim who then proceed to engage in deliberate conflict with Palestinian neighbors, provoking confrontation at every turn. As you will see, the interests of their immediate Palestinian neighbors are simply not considered relevant.

Violent activism in the name of religious politics found a logical, if desperate, conclusion in the attempted plot to blow up the sacred Islamic mosque and shrine on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This is the purported site of Solomon’s Temple, and it is the goal of Gush Emunim members to eliminate the blasphemous presence of Islam from their holy site and rebuild their own temple. This was to have been the crowning glory in activities of Jewish underground terrorism in the Territories. It is fortunate that covert efforts by the Israeli secret service foiled this plan in 1984, because simulations conducted by the Harvard Center for International Affairs indicated that World War III would have been a likely result had the plot succeeded.

In fact, activist-believers had taken just that possibility into account, expecting that the bombing would result in a massive Muslim jihad which would sweep the entire planet into confrontation. We, evidently, were to be sacrificed in their war. This was interpreted as the “War of Gog and Magog” from which a religious Israel would emerge victorious, paving the way for the appearance of the True Messiah. Such inhuman attitudes towards everyone outside the Gush Emunim must be kept in mind at all times – they don’t care about what happens to the rest of us.

Through their “sacred vigilantism,” not only are the rights of the native Arab population threatened, but the future of Israel as a free democracy as well. The rest of the world is none too safer, either.

Jewish Extremism By Jimmy Bitton Haifa is celebrated by many as one of the few places in the region where one may find flourishing Arab-Jewish coexistence. As a Christian-Arab taxi driver put it to me on our way to the Wadi Nisnas neighborhood (“Riverbed of the Marten”), also home of the Arab Jewish Centre: “Haifa is the Alexandria of our time.” It is here, from this vantage point, that I offer a commentary on the horrendous attack by a Jewish extremist against Arab-Israeli residents in the mixed Arab town of Shfaram, which has killed four people and wounded 12. In the immediate days following the attack, it was apparent from the standpoint of my wife and I that the attack had rekindled a discourse in the Israeli media about the dangers posed by Jewish extremism. Thankfully, aside from a few very minor incidents, it seemed as if Haifa was unscathed by the attack. Life went on and Jewish Arab interactions remained altogether peaceful. The city’s social fabric came under assault, as did all of Israel, but proved to be resilient in the face of Jewish extremism as it did many times before when it was directly hit by Islamic extremists. This all begs the question: Who is a Jewish extremist? To begin with, all religious extremist ideologies are held by their devotees to be fundamentalist. This is to say that the religious extremist believes that he possesses an unadulterated, more accurate, and likewise fundamentalist rendition of the holy texts. What differentiates a religious extremist from his coreligionists, who also affirm the same belief? This of course is a relative question. However, for most, an extremist is one who’s viewpoint and deeds are situated on the outermost fringes of the mainstream. Qualifying who or what should be situated on the periphery depends, in large part, on the particular time and place in history where one finds him/herself. What may be considered extreme under modern social conditions may have been the accepted norm at some early point in time. Accordingly, most ideologies are transient and subject to the will of people. Although it may seem that those ideologies that are believed to be divinely inspired could not be subject to change, the reality is that in both Jewish and Muslim circles, the human component becomes the dominating force. The unparalleled number of attacks intended to kill Jews in Israel and this attack aimed at Arabs have one clear thing in common: they have been classified by people of good sense as terrorist attacks perpetrated by religious extremists. The ultimate goal of such terrorism is to safeguard their radical interpretations of their holy texts that have been somehow challenged by the national and/or religious activities of the other. And so the perceived challenge caused by Israeli-Arabs motivated Eden Natan Zada (also known as Eden Tzuberi) violence in the Shfaram. Eden, and other Jewish extremists, views all of Biblical Israel (I.e., Greater Israel) as an eternal inheritance of the Jewish people and that all non-Jews should be banished. This view is extreme because it demonstrates a great departure from a Maimonidean teaching that permits monotheists, Sons of Noah to remain in the Land of Israel as resident aliens.” Certainly, the State of Israel and the majority of its Jewish citizens make no such distinctions in their relations with Israeli-Arabs. However, those of religious conviction that do depart from this principle have ultimately deviated from a classical Jewish posture that has existed as a dominant position since Maimonides epic work, the Mishneh Torah.

Jewish Extremism in Israel Dateline: December 09, 1998 Yitzhak Rabin’s murder was neither the conclusion nor even the beginning of a long and not always subtle process which is moving Israel away from a secular state towards a theocracy. Two very different groups are attempting to peacefully coexist in Israel, each with mutually exclusive identities and each contending to define the nature of Israeli society. Sometimes one is dominant, sometimes the other – but at all times it is impossible to understand Israel with recognizing both. One group promotes a modern society functioning according to the accepted rules of developed western societies, based on the concepts of civil liberties and civil citizenship. A second group, the focus of this article, recognize as their sole authority a selective interpretation of the Jewish halacha, or religious law. Their aim is to create a “halachic Jewish state,” a theocracy where the only law is religious in nature and all obligations and rights are defined in ancient religious terms. Their “Land of Israel” is not a strip of land with territorial boundaries, it is instead a spiritual and theological concept which must be realized. Who are they? Where do they come from? What are their current political activities and immediate political goals? And, most importantly, what effect are they having on the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians? The answers are disturbing at best. The history of Gush Emunim, or Bloc of the Faithful, can most simply be traced back to a cadre of young men hardened in the 1967 war and who, through the 1970s, came into leadership positions in far-right and ultra-religious communities across Israel. After becoming organized on a wider scale by the mid-1970s, they engaged in a considerable variety of direct-action political activities. Their efforts ranged from mass-protest rallies in which the morals of the nation were rebuked, to terrorist acts designed to sabotage peace efforts with Arab neighbors. With assistance from various sympathetic government leaders, Gush Emunim have been especially involved with the effort to increase the numbers of settlers in the Occupied Territories. Those areas are considered by them to be a part of “Greater Israel” – part of the spiritual and theological state which Jews are destined to rule over. Settlers are often themselves members of Gush Emunim who then proceed to engage in deliberate conflict with Palestinian neighbors, provoking confrontation at every turn. As you will see, the interests of their immediate Palestinian neighbors are simply not considered relevant. Violent activism in the name of religious politics found a logical, if desperate, conclusion in the attempted plot to blow up the sacred Islamic mosque and shrine on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This is the purported site of Solomon’s Temple, and it is the goal of Gush Emunim members to eliminate the blasphemous presence of Islam from their holy site and rebuild their own temple. This was to have been the crowning glory in activities of Jewish underground terrorism in the Territories. It is fortunate that covert efforts by the Israeli secret service foiled this plan in 1984, because simulations conducted by the Harvard Center for International Affairs indicated that World War III would have been a likely result had the plot succeeded. In fact, activist-believers had taken just that possibility into account, expecting that the bombing would result in a massive Muslim jihad which would sweep the entire planet into confrontation. We, evidently, were to be sacrificed in their war. This was interpreted as the “War of Gog and Magog” from which a religious Israel would emerge victorious, paving the way for the appearance of the True Messiah. Such inhuman attitudes towards everyone outside the Gush Emunim must be kept in mind at all times – they don’t care about what happens to the rest of us. Through their “sacred vigilantism,” not only are the rights of the native Arab population threatened, but the future of Israel as a free democracy as well. The rest of the world is none too safer, either.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work,

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."